Apostolic Friends Forum - Preaching truth a hate crime???

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Deep Waters (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Preaching truth a hate crime??? (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=8097)

Preaching truth a hate crime???

Read it for yourself...

http://www.afa.net/hatecrime2.asp

Isn't this horrible? The craziest thing you've ever heard?

Your responses are welcome.....

Apostolics are in a FOG.

They think this stuff will only happen in obscure liberal places but a rude awakening is coming.

living out here will give you a reality check as to what is to come

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thad (Post 247749)

Apostolics are in a FOG.

They think this stuff will only happen in obscure liberal places but a rude awakening is coming.

living out here will give you a reality check as to what is to come

Uh...no, us "apostolics" are very much aware that this is happening right here in our back yard....many of us just get ignored for pointing these things out or are called hate mongers by the liberals

There is absolutely no way a bill would pass that would make it illegal to say something is immoral.... None...

not even homosexuals would support a bill that would do that...

There are bills about hate speech, but they have more to do with the kind of thing that happened to Mathew Shepard than a preacher saying that it is immoral to be gay but people should be allowed to live thier lives without fear of being killed/beat up/kicked out of public places for the way they choose to live thier lives that harms no one but themselves...

Quote:

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84 (Post 247930)

You really don't think homosexuals advocate this bill?

sad that America would get herself in the shape she is in...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 247956)

You really don't think homosexuals advocate this bill?

do they advocate the bill? Probably...

But the bill is not making it illegal to preach that homosexuality is immoral...

some info on the bill from other sources (the one you cited is EXTREMELY biased):

http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/Nat...05/default.asp

Quote:

(2) It could ultimately lead to prosecution for thoughts and restrictions on free speech and religious liberty. Although H.R. 1592 prosecutes only “acts of violence” and does not prosecute expressions or opinions, it opens the door to examining the thoughts of not only a criminal, but everyone with whom he may have come into contact. An overzealous prosecutor could turn a criminal prosecution into a political correctness prosecution. Broadly written hate crimes bills in other states and countries have been used to restrict the freedom of politically incorrect and unpopular speech. This bill could be used to advance the politically correct agenda in this country by providing greater protections for certain classes of people. Future legislation could expand these protections and place restrictions on religious liberty and free speech.

(3) It is unnecessary. Recent FBI statistics show that crimes motivated by hatred or bias against a trait of the victim are decreasing. Furthermore, many states already have a hate crimes law and there is no evidence that the states are failing to prosecute hate crimes. States which do not have hate crimes laws still prosecute the crimes under existing criminal laws. A federal bill hate crimes bill would only increase the control and scope of the federal government.

This site is biased, too, thankfully they tell the truth about it... This bill DOES NOT make saying something illegal...

It makes it a more serious crime if you beat someone up because they are gay and call them "gay slurs" while you do it...

You cannot be prosecuted under this bill if you do not commit some act of violence in conjunction with your speech...

http://www.hatecrimesbill.org/
Some excerpts of the bill (the entire thing is there if you follow the link):

Quote:

(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

Quote:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act--

(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

Please show me where in any of that saying "homosexuality is immoral in the eyes of God and will send someone to hell" is going to send someone to jail... Quite frankly, I think the people who killed Mathew Shephard (the bill is named in his honor) SHOULD have worse penalties for what they did because thier intent DOES make it worse.... It makes it hurtful to everyone, nationwide, who is or has a loved one who is a homosexual, and that is a big deal...

Look at what race crimes did in the 50s, 60s, and early 90s (and I'm sure at other times, too)...

just like you can't do things to people because of thier race, you can't commit violent acts against people because of thier sexual orientation, that is all this bill is doing (plus its also doing the same for race, gender, etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84 (Post 248007)

some info on the bill from other sources (the one you cited is EXTREMELY biased):

http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/Nat...05/default.asp

This site is biased, too, thankfully they tell the truth about it... This bill DOES NOT make saying something illegal...

It makes it a more serious crime if you beat someone up because they are gay and call them "gay slurs" while you do it...

You cannot be prosecuted under this bill if you do not commit some act of violence in conjunction with your speech...

RC is correct. The proposed law does stipulate a crime which "constitutes a crime of violence under federal law or a felony under state, local, or Indian tribal laws."

Summary of legislation. Text of legislation.

In order to be prosecuted under this proposed law one would have to be committing an act of violence. There are proposed stipulations as well that specify 1st Amendment protected activities like free speech are not even under consideration.

Like most "hate crime" laws I think this law is problematic because it creates protected classes of people. Someone can attack me but it's not a Federal offense if all they wanted was my wallet. Then the local cops don't even investigate.

Someone in one of the protected classes gets mugged and they get the assistance of the FBI to track down their attackers. Where's the justice?

How about laws that simply state it's wrong to violently attack another human being? We don't care what's going on inside your head. We don't care about issues that you had as a child during toilet training. We only want to know, did the cops catch the violent bad guy? Yes, or no.

We got him/her? Good, lock 'em up.

The separation of church and state being what it is there is no way this bill
in its present form would keep homosexuality from being preached against in
our churches.

It is already illegal to speak out against homosexuality in Canada.

Seems like the US is trying to streamline our laws in a variety of ways.

Speaking out on the street or in the synagogue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 248158)

Those laws already exist...

All these laws do is make it worse if your crime is somehow motivated the gender, race, social class, or sexual orientation of the person you attack...

Murder is still murder, there is just this extra thing tacked on if you murder the person 'cuz they're black and you hate black people...

For instance, let's use what happened with Mathew Shephard...

The two guys who kidnapped him and killed him would still get all the charges they got anyways for what they did, they'd just get an extra charge on top of that for this. The acts they committed are still illegal just like if it was a straight man they randomly picked...

Basically the jist of this legislation is the admittance that killing someone BECAUSE of something is worse than just killing them... and I don't really personally have an issue with that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titus2Mom (Post 248182)

It is already illegal to speak out against homosexuality in Canada.

Seems like the US is trying to streamline our laws in a variety of ways.

The only sources I've ever seen for that are extremely biased Christian sites trying to scare people like the site linked in post 1 of this thread (read: they aren't credible at all)...

If you have any credible sources for this, I'm all ears, but as of right now I consider that a wive's tale...

In Brazil it is against the law also...

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 248158)

Does the bill stipulate what violence means? If not your words can be perceived as an act of violence

BTW RC quotes this as "proof". Note the part where it says IT COULD...It could what?
It could ultimately lead to prosecution for thoughts and restrictions on free speech and religious liberty.

Could that be a reason why many oppose it? We already have hate Crime laws on the books...why do we need another one?

Although H.R. 1592 prosecutes only “acts of violence” and does not prosecute expressions or opinions, it opens the door to examining the thoughts of not only a criminal, but everyone with whom he may have come into contact.

It opens the door. The problem is if this bill is not worded specifically to say that only physical acts of violence such as physical assault and not verbal assault or words that could be said to incite physical assault or worse, then it can be loosely interpreted by any court in the land to prosecute Christians. So we need to closely examine this bill and how it is worded.

An overzealous prosecutor could turn a criminal prosecution into a political correctness prosecution.

Exactly...this is RCs quote, not mine.

Broadly written hate crimes bills in other states and countries have been used to restrict the freedom of politically incorrect and unpopular speech.

Again...exactly! Thanks Reformed

This bill could be used to advance the politically correct agenda in this country by providing greater protections for certain classes of people. Future legislation could expand these protections and place restrictions on religious liberty and free speech.

And again...exactly. RC says this was a biased source but they got it right...

Now I have a question...why should beating the mess out of a homosexual and killing him because he is a homosexual be a worse crime for beating the mess out of anyone at all and killing them for any other reason? Why do we even need hate crime laws that actually end up forming a specially protected class of Americans?

Quote:

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84 (Post 248190)

Most violent crimes involve hate already. These kinds of laws are open doors for more special protections. It's NOT worse. Are gang bangers prosecuted for hate crimes because they blow away a child while trying to kill a cross town rival gang member they HATE? No...but if he kills a gay person and says "Hey homo...you sick puppy, prepare to die" he will get extra time. Absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 248279)

Exactly. That's why I said,

Quote:

How about laws that simply state it's wrong to violently attack another human being? We don't care what's going on inside your head. We don't care about issues that you had as a child during toilet training. We only want to know, did the cops catch the violent bad guy? Yes, or no.

We got him/her? Good, lock 'em up.

RC responded that "Those laws already exist..." To which I would say, "Oh, it's already illegal to kill and assault? Good. Prosecute those guys and don't waste a lot of my time on the sick drama that plays out in their heads. Just protect the innocent. Keep my sidewalks safe.

These laws are being put on the books at the pressure of the GLTB groups that have classified themselves as the new "civil rights" movement. If the church is not careful not only will it be a crime to speak out against such debauchery but it will also be a crime to deny services to them.

I have interviewed some of these folks who are pushing for same sex marriage and they have admitted to me that in the end if it passes then they will have grounds to sue any church/minister who refuses them the sanctity of marriage.

[QUOTE]Could that be a reason why many oppose it? We already have hate Crime laws on the books...why do we need another one?[/QUOTE

Yes, that is why people oppose it... the problem is that there is NO WAY that this law could ever be applied that way... Go back and read the actual writing from the Bill that I posted...

Quote:

It opens the door. The problem is if this bill is not worded specifically to say that only physical acts of violence such as physical assault and not verbal assault or words that could be said to incite physical assault or worse, then it can be loosely interpreted by any court in the land to prosecute Christians. So we need to closely examine this bill and how it is worded.

No, it doesn't open the door. Not even a homosexual would support "thought crime" legislation....

And, in case you didn't notice, I posted half of the bill and linked to the other half of the bill, go back and read it... It mentions "act of violence" specifically...

absolutely no way this can be interpreted as "verbal assaults" being included...

Quote:

Exactly...this is RCs quote, not mine.

There is no way an "overzealous prosecutor" could do anything but tack a few years on the end of a sentence for this... turn 25 to life to 35 to life...

Quote:

And again...exactly. RC says this was a biased source but they got it right...

No, they didn't, and I proved that later in the post when I actually posted the bill, keep reading, you'll find it...

Quote:

Because it can start a riot...

look at it this way... When the police beat Rodney King up because he was black the entire city of LA (among others) rioted... many more were injured and even killed BECAUSE of a racially motivated crime...

That is the reason motive matters.... All this does is make it worse to have a specific motive over other motives...

There are already similar laws on the books, and always have been. "Manslaughter" is when you accidentally kill someone by doing something illegal... 1st Degree Murder is when you do that same illegal thing, but you do it on purpose....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 248281)

the special protections already exist, this is just restating them and allowing them to give greater penalties for them...

and it isn't absurd because crimes that involve hate based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. can cause riots and other retaliatory reactions from those who are similar to the person being attacked or others who believe like the attacker...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bishoph (Post 248325)

it will NEVER be a law in the United States to say something is immoral... EVER... the GLBT groups wouldn't even allow that to happen and they'd march with us on Washington if they tried to enact real "thought crime" laws...

and they aren't reacting to pressure from them because they see themselves as a new civil rights group, they are doing this because they see evidence that those "civil rights" actually need to be protected and things like what happened to Mathew Shephard and the reactions of people to it show that....

And, again, there will never be any laws requiring any church to marry any person. You can already refuse to marry any straight couple, so why in the world would they force you to "marry" a gay couple????

Rod Parsley’s ‘Center for Moral Clarity’ is generating a petition against the hate crimes bill. I was looking on Breakthrough and he interviewed two preachers who were jailed for preaching against homosexualty. www.centerformoralclarity.net.

This may be real; I pray it’s not. I don’t have a home computer at home right now, so my responses are few. I will get back to this as soon as I can.

The bill in question does not have any "speech" implications. However, it is worth opposing because it is bad law. All violent crime should be punished and there is already clear established law on the books to deal with violent crime. adding additional punishment based on the thinking of the criminal sets a bad precident. i know there are some laws of this nature on the books already but they too are bad law.

But this bill does not deal with speech. Ive read the actual bill itself. you should read it. I still oppose the measure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd (Post 249133)

no, its not a bad precedent, and it already exists...

premeditated murder = 1st degree murder
not premeditated murder = 2nd/3rd degree murder (I don't remember which or what the other "degree" is)

there are already a ton of laws that make one crime worse than another crime based upon the thought of the person who committed the act...

but these aren't bad laws, they are good ones, because the intent/reasoning of the person who does the crime DOES add to or take away from the gravity of the crime and the good of the community...

And I posted the bill in the thread 3 pages ago and read it right before I did that (do you read my posts?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84 (Post 248388)

Because it can start a riot...

look at it this way... When the police beat Rodney King up because he was black the entire city of LA (among others) rioted... many more were injured and even killed BECAUSE of a racially motivated crime...

That is the reason motive matters.... All this does is make it worse to have a specific motive over other motives...

There are already similar laws on the books, and always have been. "Manslaughter" is when you accidentally kill someone by doing something illegal... 1st Degree Murder is when you do that same illegal thing, but you do it on purpose....

At the risk of starting a riot here... The riot in LA was a few days [*correction: the riots were a year and a half later] after the much publicized beating of Mr. King. Also, the tape of that beating was edited by the media outlets and did not show Mr. King attacking the police officers, repeatedly attacking the police officers. The reason Mr. King was beaten was because instead of obeying the lawful orders of the police he repeatedly attacked them. I remember that at least 2 officers were treated at local hospitals because of injuries they suffered from Mr. King's attacks.

Mr. King himself, even after collecting a multimillion dollar jackpot was repeatedly arrested for assaults against police officers and against other citizens. The man was a menance. Hopefully he's chilled out by now, but his record shows he's a thug and a dangerous criminal.

The riot itself was really the product of that censored tape that failed to show people the truth. That tape was played repeatedly to inflame public opinion against the the police. As the truth dribbled out there was less and less support for Mr. King, even among the African-American community. I preached a sermon on civil responsibility one Sunday after those riots and was approached by several African-Americans in the congregation afterward who wanted to thank me for taking a stand. "It isn't skin, it's sin...!" one sister said, rather memorably.

You make other points, but your memory of the Rodney King affair could use a refresher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 249477)

At the risk of starting a riot here... The riot in LA was a few days after the much publicized beating of Mr. King. Also, the tape of that beating was edited by the media outlets and did not show Mr. King attacking the police officers, repeatedly attacking the police officers. The reason Mr. King was beaten was because instead of obeying the lawful orders of the police he repeatedly attacked them. I remember that at least 2 officers were treated at local hospitals because of injuries they suffered from Mr. King's attacks.

Mr. King himself, even after collecting a multimillion dollar jackpot was repeatedly arrested for assaults against police officers and against other citizens. The man was a menance. Hopefully he's chilled out by now, but his record shows he's a thug and a dangerous criminal.

The riot itself was really the product of that censored tape that failed to show people the truth. That tape was played repeatedly to inflame public opinion against the the police. As the truth dribbled out there was less and less support for Mr. King, even among the African-American community. I preached a sermon on civil responsibility one Sunday after those riots and was approached by several African-Americans in the congregation afterward who wanted to thank me for taking a stand. "It isn't skin, it's sin...!" one sister said, rather memorably.

You make other points, but your memory of the Rodney King affair could use a refresher.

my point was more that when the whole nation thought it was a racially motivated crime, they rioted...

Whether it actually was or not wasn't the point of what I said... lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84 (Post 249488)

my point was more that when the whole nation thought it was a racially motivated crime, they rioted...

Whether it actually was or not wasn't the point of what I said... lol

yeah, but... :)

Since the "nation" was literally mislead as to the motives involved with the R.K. saga...

and since motive is at the heart of these "hate crime" laws...

Shouldn't we remove that element that can be used to corrupt and even to circumvent our criminal justice system all together? Remove the "hate crimes" language. Just go with the already illegal things like it's wrong to assault and kill.

The police already have at their disposal "disturbance" and "disorder" types of charges that they can use against, say, a klansman who hangs a noose over a black judge's doorstep. That kind of thing is wrong and likely to provoke public disorder - but we've already got laws to deal with it.